You are currently viewing our site as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions, articles and access our other FREE features. By joining our free community you will have, access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

Meanwhile, my reply back to the most boring senator in the known universe after his auto-reply;

Dear Mr. Casey,

Thank you for the acknowledgement of our communications with your auto-reply, but I think we have a problem here - and I know that you don’t want to be a problem to your constituency here in Pennsylvania.

First off to your opening points, Yes – we are ALL horrified and repulsed by the events in Newtown.

But… What was being hidden behind a smokescreen of anti-gun rhetoric is the fact that a vidiot-gaming nutcase took his mother’s LEGAL guns - purchased and owned LEGALLY under onerous Connecticut laws – and then ILLEGALLY used them to ILLEGALLY kill his own mother before ILLEGALLY killing the Sandy Hook children.

What part of ILLEGAL action is not understood here?

The mother’s body hadn’t even officially been discovered yet before Biden’s anti-gun ghouls were already in the cameras relishing the Sandy Hook blood to push their agenda against LEGAL guns.

I am not going to get into the Second Amendment/Founding Fathers yadda yadda – as I know that YOU SHOULD UNDERSTAND exactly what “shall not be infringed” means. And we intend to hold you to it.

If it appears you did not understand “shall not be infringed”, we – as your employers here in PA - will arrange during the next election to give you ample time away from work to learn about the Second Amendment.

To be sure; YOU do not have the political capital to survive going against US voters here in Pennsylvania - your EMPLOYERS - the ones who ELECTED YOU.
As for the others;

• Crazy Uncle Joe Biden has NOTHING to lose with his dimwitted double-barrel blathering – he’ll fade into the sunset to go play pinochle with wacky Howard Dean.
• Obama has NOTHING to lose; he will dethrone Klinton as the official orator of the left.
• Chuck Schumer will remain “in like Flynt” unless proven to be an agent for Hamas.
• Sens Feinswine and Boxer, and Nancy Pelosi are entrenched forever; ditsy ************ns will gladly re-elect their three Macbethian witches even with video proof of a boiling cauldron of dead gay babies.

But for you; we will be watching YOUR vote, and we too, will vote. So unless YOU intend for your privileged Senate career to end with a run for election as a dogcatcher – you need to stand tall and VOTE AGAINST ANY new gun control laws of any kind introduced in the Senate.

Understand that this isn’t like the pointless “ban laws” of the past – we have the Internet now for fast, mass communications. I intend to make sure my message to YOU is posted to every message board I know of so that fellow gun owners know of this.

We are and will be watching – and voting.

Sincerely,

Dear Mr. xxxxxxxx:

Thank you for taking the time to contact me about recent proposals related to guns. I appreciate hearing from you about this issue.

As you know, on December 14, 2012, an individual in Newtown, Connecticut forced his way into Sandy Hook Elementary School and opened fire on teachers and staff in the building. In total, the perpetrator murdered 20 students between the ages of six and seven years old, as well as six adults, many of whom heroically sought to stop the shooter and save the lives of children. Like many Americans, I was deeply affected by the scope and brutality of this act. My thoughts and prayers are with the victims and their families.

The motives that led to this senseless massacre will likely never fully be comprehended. However, I believe that all public officials have a responsibility to work to prevent such an event from occurring again. This incident reflects a complex problem that requires a comprehensive strategy, including funding for law enforcement officers and the mental health care system. Too many individuals with mental illness are not receiving the services they need and tragically, sometimes a small number of these individuals turn violent. I have supported access to affordable and accessible mental health services for all Americans and I will continue to review proposed solutions to improve our mental health system. As lawmakers consider an appropriate response to this challenging issue, we should consider all of the factors that could prevent such heinous acts.

As you may know, I am a strong supporter of the Second Amendment. Pennsylvania has a fine hunting and sporting tradition, and I will defend the right to bear arms as it is enshrined in our Constitution. I will continue to back the right to bear arms for purposes of self-defense, recreation, sporting and collection. However, I also believe that the attack at Sandy Hook Elementary School highlights very serious dangers posed to public safety by the misuse of certain weapons and technology originally developed for warfare. According to reports, the shooter was able to kill many children and adults very quickly because he possessed a military-style semiautomatic weapon. He also allegedly used magazines containing up to 30 rounds of ammunition and carried hundreds of rounds more. After much reflection and careful study of the issue, I have decided to support a federal assault weapons ban as well as legislation restricting high capacity magazines. In light of what occurred at Sandy Hook, these are two measures that will lessen the chances that this will happen again. Before supporting such a law, I would first and foremost ensure that it did not unduly abridge the right to bear arms as established by the Second Amendment.

Our Nation has already begun a critical dialogue as we examine what steps must be taken to prevent this type of tragedy in the future. On January 17, 2012, President Obama unveiled a package of proposals to reduce gun violence, which included strengthening the system of background checks, reinstating the assault weapon and high-capacity magazines ban, improving school safety and expanding access to mental health services. I look forward to reviewing these proposals in detail and to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to address this complex issue.

On January 24, 2013, Senator Dianne Feinstein of California introduced S. 150, the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013. This legislation would explicitly permit the possession of affected firearms that were owned prior to the bill’s enactment; firearms that are manually operated; firearms used by military, law enforcement and retired law enforcement; and antique weapons. Further, this legislation lists 2,258 hunting and sporting rifles and shotguns that are entirely exempt from the ban.

This legislation would ban the sale, transfer, manufacturing and importation of all semiautomatic rifles that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least one of seven specified military features. S. 150 would further ban semiautomatic pistols that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least one of certain listed military features, as well as ammunition magazines that can accept more than 10 rounds. The Assault Weapons Ban would also regulate the transfer and storage of permitted, grandfathered weapons and allow local law enforcement to use certain federal funds for voluntary gun buyback programs. The Assault Weapons Ban was referred to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, of which I am not a member. Please be assured that should this legislation come before the full Senate for consideration, I will have your views in mind.

Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts with me. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future about this or any other matter of importance to you.

For more information on this or other issues, I encourage you to visit my website, http://casey.senate.gov. I hope you will find this online office a comprehensive resource to stay up-to-date on my work in Washington, request assistance from my office or share with me your thoughts on the issues that matter most to you and to Pennsylvania.

Sincerely,
Bob Casey
United States Senator

P.S. If you would like to respond to this message, please use the contact form on my website: http://casey.senate.gov/contact/
__________________
In a victim nation, a classroom full of dead children is morally superior to a teacher holding a smoking gun knowing she just protected her students.

__________________
“After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn't do it.” - William S. Burroughs

Letter sent to Va 6'th District Mr. Robert Goodlatte
-----------------------------

Mr. Goodlatte;

I write you as a citizen who is gravely concerned about the attitudes being taken towards American citizens and their rights and freedoms. While I am both angered and saddened by the actions of a few loose cannons in our society this cannot and must not be allowed to change the core beliefs upon which this Nation and the Commonwealth of Virginia were founded.

I would like for you to stand strong against the poorly considered and emotionally driven gun control policies being rushed forward and ramrodded through the judicial process without consideration as to the economic and legal impacts of the vast majority of citizens who have not, and will never, commit any sort of crimes.

Universal background checks sound like a good idea, but anyone who doubts the abuse that would follow such a de facto gun registration list should study more history including the confiscation actions taken by California in the 1990s even after they expressly promised no such actions would happen.

Modern semi-automatic rifles (media labeled with the pejorative "Assault weapons") and their magazines are extremely common, middle-of-the-road equipment, and exactly the kind of items that the Second Amendment protects. A vote to ban or restrict either is a vote against our own Bill of Rights.

As a constituent, I expect that you will do me the courtesy of letting me know how you are going to vote on gun-control bills that institute universal background checks or that ban or restrict either so called "assault weapons" or their magazines.

I received the same exact response yesterday and it made my blood boil. I've been going over my response in my head ever since and I keep re-writing it (in my head) going from shear raging passion to a more rational response. I fear that even responding will fall on deaf ears. HOW DO WE GET THROUGH TO THESE PEOPLE? Something tells me that we are NOT going to change an anti's mind no matter how much we try and even IF we were to get them to sway to pro, it'll only be to save their hide so they can get re-elected. Holding a vote over a representative's head is not what I call a good compromise.

On another note, here's the response I received from Toomey. A bit better, but it doesn't give me the warm and fuzzies.

Dear [redacted],

Thank you for contacting me about gun control. I appreciate hearing from you.

As you may know, January 16, 2013, President Obama announced a variety of gun policy measures in response to the Newtown, CT killings. I therefore value knowing your views on this important issue, which is important to me as I carefully review the President's proposals. Like many Pennsylvanians, I believe that Second Amendment rights are important and must be protected, but there may be areas of agreement with the White House that can be addressed to improve public safety. I also believe that people who use guns in an illegal manner or harm others with them should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.

That said, we have consistently observed that mass killings are the result of serious mental illness. We therefore need to better protect ourselves from mentally ill individuals who seek to carry out such atrocities, including improved background checks. We also need to review and improve how we take care of the mentally ill. As I continue working with my Senate colleagues on both sides of the aisle on public safety, please be assured that I will keep your views about firearms in mind.

Thank you again for your correspondence. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if I can be of assistance.

I received the same responses after two seperate emails to Casey, and one to Toomey. I agree, Toomey's isn't much better.

I also sent a few emails to Jim Gerlach, my Rep, and his wasn't much better.

Quote:

Dear Mr. Pilot:

Thank you for your contacting me regarding your thoughts on gun control. I appreciate the opportunity to respond.

As you may know, in the aftermath of the school shootings in Newtown, CT, Vice President Joe Biden was charged with leading a task force including members of advocacy groups, teachers, elected officials, and sports and wildlife conservationists to prepare recommendations for President Obama on how to reduce gun violence. On January 16th, President Obama unveiled this broad package of measures that range from legislative proposals to ban assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition clips to Executive Orders to improve incentives for states to contribute records to federal background check systems established under existing law. I look forward to the President bringing these plans to Congress where I hope to have an open and honest discussion with my House colleagues and constituents about how to protect the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens while, at the same time, preventing those who lack the ability and competency to responsibly use firearms from obtaining and using them to harm innocent victims.

Let me make it explicitly clear that my policy positions and votes on legislation are driven and determined by what I believe will be in the best interests of the over 700,000 constituents who I represent in the Sixth Congressional District of Pennsylvania. Our constituency is made up of individuals with a diverse range of opinions and beliefs on all issues, including polarizing and sensitive topics such as gun control, and it is my responsibility to take into consideration all of these thoughts and opinions before making any final decision as to how I will vote on legislation.

With that being said, during my tenure in Congress, I have supported legislation to preserve and protect the constitutional rights of our citizens, including those rights provided under the Second Amendment. However, as is the case with every bill that comes to the House floor, I will evaluate each piece of legislation and weigh the costs, benefits and expected impact of such legislation against the concerns and views of my constituents and one's Second Amendment right to bear arms.

Thank you for contacting me regarding this important issue. Please let me know if I can be of any assistance to you or your family in the future.

With kind regards, I am

Sincerely,

Jim Gerlach
Member of Congress

So, he doesn't vow to uphold the Second Amendment, he will weight the costs and benefits against the concerns and views of his constituents. Meaning if he perceives many of his constituents are for gun bans, he will vote for them even if it violates the 2A. Just great.

The following is a response to the email message I sent to Senator Joe Donnelly from Indiana, it is better than I thought it would be especially since he is a Democrat, I havent as yet received any response from my other Senator.

Dear Mr. Montgomery,

I am a supporter of the Second Amendment, and I have voted to protect the rights of law-abiding gun owners. Like all Americans, I was shaken to my core by the senseless murders of 20 children in Newtown, Connecticut. It is only reasonable for all of us to consider ways to reduce the likelihood of a tragedy like that happening again.

Whether a gun owner or not, a Democrat or a Republican, everyone would agree that we can take steps to reduce violent crime without sacrificing the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens. My concern is not those who follow the law, but those who do not. For this reason, I will not support legislation that would ban the sale of assault weapons to those who obey the law. I will, however, give serious consideration to proposals that would keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill, while preserving the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding gun owners.

It is a privilege to represent you and all Hoosiers in the U.S. Senate. Your continued correspondence is welcome and helps me to better represent our state. I encourage you to write, call, or email if my office can ever be of assistance. You can also check out my Facebook page and follow me on Twitter by visiting my website

__________________

Quote:

A new ban will also NOT reduce crime or stop madmen. It will, however, show lawful gun owners that the government wants to take away their rights by starting with the right to protect the rest of their rights.

Like millions of people across the country, I was heartbroken by the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School last December. I do not know how to explain the deaths of twenty innocent children or why six heroic teachers had to make the ultimate sacrifice for their students.

I also grew up in family that used guns. My older brothers hunted, and I learned to shoot when I was in grade school. I have great respect for the role that hunting and guns play in many communities across the country and believe there is a place for responsible gun ownership in our society. But I also don't think anyone needs military-grade assault weapons to hunt or Rambo-style high capacity magazines to protect their family from intruders.

That's why I support a comprehensive set of reforms to reduce gun violence. I strongly support reauthorizing the expired ban on federal assault weapons and high capacity magazines. I also support closing the loopholes in federal background checks for gun shows and private sales. The President has put forward a slate of proposals to help address gun violence and gun safety, and I support those efforts as well.

There is no one way to stop gun violence, and there is certainly room for disagreement on the steps that we should take. But I hope that we can agree that we have a responsibility to ourselves and to our children to take the steps we can to stop the violence. I believe that a reauthorized assault weapons ban and the President's proposals represent a responsible path forward. I will keep your thoughts in mind as I continue to look for other steps we can take to protect our children and families from these terrible tragedies. I believe that is my responsibility as a United States Senator -- and as a mother and grandmother.

Sincerely,

Signature

Dear Elizabeth,

Thank you for your response. I see we are going to disagree about the the steps needed to prevent further tragedies like the Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings. Let me ask you a simple question. Were you intent on committing a heinous crime like Sandy Hook, (remember this is hypothetical), and there were two places just about the same. Would you choose the one where there were guarantees that your victims could not fight back, or would you choose the one where they might be armed people to resist? The fact that you think you can legislate behavior is ridiculous! Might as well pass a law banning mass shootings. It will accomplish the same thing. I know it is easier to punish law abiding citizens than it is to tackle a real problem. Like mental health.

I must tell you that as a veteran of the United States Marine Corps, I took a very similar oath that you did as a United States Senator. I don't believe the Oath has an expiration date. Let me refresh your memory, yours-

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."

Mine-

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

After reading your response, I couldn't help but question my readings of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. So I read them again. I can't seem to find the part about hunting. As a lawyer you must have had some classes on the Constitution? Did you not read the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers? I am pretty sure the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States Says. "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

I am pretty sure the Founders intended the Second amendment to remind those in "power" of the peoples right to bear arms. You seem willing to restrict that right. There is a process in the Constitution to change the Constitution. Feel free to follow that route if you so choose. By subverting that process by incremental legislation is the wrong path. I hope you take the time to do some reading and thinking for yourself, instead of being a rubber stamp to the people in office, whichever party they belong to.

Thank you for your time,
LNK
United States Citizen

Last edited by LNK; February 14, 2013 at 07:51 AM.
Reason: left name in

Just received this from McGowan, he's a strong anti, must be ousted in the next election

Thank you for your note. The reality that one man killed 20 children and six adults in a matter of minutes says to me that we must do better. The safety of my two grandaughters is more important to me than an individuals ability to have any guns or ammunition he choses. I do not beleive that having two hundred million guns in our country makes it a safer or healthier place to live.

Let's work together to ensure the safety of our people and the rights of gun owners.

Representative Paul McGowan

__________________
Pvt. Baldrick; You know they say that somewhere out there, there's a bullet with your name on it?, I thought if I *OWNED* the bullet with my name on it, then I'd never get shot with it...

I hate to be a doomsayer, but in the case of Elizabeth Warren, it's a lost cause. You might as well copy a page of the phone book and send it to her. It was have as much effect. She is a hard left liberal ideologue. And no matter how much you organize against her, she's going to stay in office. Ted Kennedy, who was as slimy a politician as ever sat in the senate chamber, was not only responsible not only for the death of Mary Jo Kopechne, his behavior in the aftermath of the car crash that killed her was contemptible, cowardly, and self-serving in the extreme. The people of Massachusetts saw fit to keep sending him back to Washington to represent them for the next 40 years. It didn't matter how much of a scumbag he was, you see. He was a reliable liberal, and in liberal Massachusetts, that's all that mattered.

In the last election, the people of Massachusetts chose to unseat precisely the sort of moderate republican they all say they wish there were more of, and turn the seat over to a hard left ideologue with severe character and integrity issues. That's how leftist the whole state is. Warren could say she supports door to door searches and confiscations of all firearms, and I am 100% confident that she would still be reelected in Massachusetts.

The state is lost, as far as the vote on the ASW ban in the senate goes. Kerry and Warren are both going to vote yes, and there is nothing short of divine intervention that's going to change it.

I know, but at least I can tell them how I feel. I know it is a waste of time, and you are right about it being a lost cause. I have always been hard headed though. Kerry may not be there to vote. Secretary of State has no senate voting rights...

One thing I would like to state is that Senator Tom Harkin (D) is quitting his life in the Senate when re-elections. That being said, here's the reply I got from him about an e-mail I shot him about the AWB and magazine bans, (I don't know how to correctly quote it so anything in " " is what he said)
"Dear XXXXX:

Thank you for contacting me regarding proposed gun safety measures and mental health reform. I appreciate hearing from you about these important topics.

Like all Americans, I was deeply saddened by the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. What added to our grief as a nation was that it also came on the heels of mass gun shootings in Colorado, Arizona, Wisconsin, and the senseless acts of violence that occur every day throughout our country. In light of all of these events, it is apparent that far too many Americans, including children, are needlessly losing their lives. We must come together as a country to prevent future tragedies and the senseless loss of life, and to ensure that no American lives in fear.

On January 17, 2013, the President put forward a specific plan to protect our children and communities by reducing gun violence. The plan includes legislative and executive action that combined would close background check loopholes, ban military-style assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, equip schools with safety resources and equipment, and increase access to mental health services.

As a hunter, I know that the recreational use and collection of guns is important to many Iowans and I will continue to work to protect the rights of law-abiding American gun owners. But we need to ask whether people need unlimited access to any arms, including those capable of shooting hundreds of bullets in a very short time. We can support gun rights while continuing to support responsible legislation to reduce crime and make our schools and communities safer. Each of these goals is important and I believe that they can be accomplished simultaneously.

That is why, over the years, I have consistently supported common-sense measures to protect our communities. For example, in the past, I have voted in favor of legislation to close the loopholes on criminal background checks on gun purchases at gun shows, and to require gun manufacturers to include child safety locks on guns. I have also voted against a blanket liability exception for gun manufacturers and sellers.

The tragedy at Newtown also shined a light on the state of our country's mental health care system. Over the past several months, I have heard from many Iowans about this issue, and their voices have been joined with people across the nation, including President Obama, calling for us to take a hard look at improving access to mental health services. In so doing, it is important to combat a common, insidious misconception that people with mental illness are inherently violent. In fact, individuals with mental illness are far more likely to be the victims of violence than the perpetrators. We must remember that this unfounded stereotype is an impediment to reform, not a window into it.

With this in mind, on January 24, 2013, as Chairman of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, I convened a hearing to assess the state of America's mental health. We heard from expert government witnesses, as well as health care providers, mental health agencies, and patients. To view a webcast of this hearing, please visit http://www.help.senate.gov.

The hearing highlighted some of the shortcomings of the mental health care system. To begin with, mental health illnesses are chronic diseases that disproportionately affect young people under the age of 24. Yet the system appears to be failing some of these people. Less than half of children with an identified mental illness receive treatment, and the average gap between the onset of symptoms and the receiving of treatment is nearly a decade. Failing to diagnose and treat mental illness early in life seriously - and needlessly - aggravates adult mental health illnesses.

Shortcomings in diagnosis and treatment also spill over into other areas of society. For instance, a student struggling with a mental illness, like depression or anxiety, faces additional difficulties maintaining good grades and graduating on time. Our prisons are also overburdened by people who should be receiving treatment and substance abuse counseling as part of their rehabilitation.

We know that when individuals with mental illnesses receive appropriate treatment and support, they can recover and lead productive, healthy lives. I am currently examining proposals to strengthen access to mental health services in our communities, in schools, and in the clinical setting. In addition, as Chairman of the Senate Appropriations subcommittee that funds federal health initiatives, I plan to take a close look at opportunities to strengthen funding measures. I am also heartened at the reforms we have already made. The landmark health insurance reform law, the Affordable Care Act (ACA), provides nearly 30 million previously-uninsured Americans with access to health insurance plans that will be required to include coverage for mental health and substance abuse services. Integrating primary care and mental health services will reduce barriers to care and lessen the stigma of mental illness.

Again, thank you for sharing your views with me. Please do not hesitate to let me know how you feel on any issue that concerns you.

Sincerely,

Tom Harkin
United States Senator"
I'm thinking about replying to this, any ideas on what to say so I don't make myself look like an idiot and sound factual? My ideas were to start off on statics about how 3% of long rifles are used in gun-related crimes, and how .6% is actual 'assault weapons' blah blah. I would also like to use how a woman could use 30 cartridges to defend herself, and why she would need it, etc. Any ideas on what to add?

His statements about the "gun show loophole" disclose his ignorance about the subject. Sales by people who are not FFLs do not require a 4473 or NICS, regardless of where they occur. FFL sales require a 4473 and NICS regardless of where they occur. Criminals who possess a firearm have committed at least two crimes, their first conviction earned their status as a criminal; their second crime is the possession of a firearm.

Fortunately Harkin is retiring. Iowa's next senator needs to read and understand the 2nd, and McDonald and Heller.

I, also from Pa, got the SAME sick rhetoric from this lame excuse of a man, a coward and traitor to his state and country, who dangles from the strings of the great messiah & puppetmaster. His father before him also stank as "governor" of this once proud state. The caseys are a lost cause. Don't even waste your time writing to him . He is more concerned with the rights of illegals, welfare cheats and sundry other entitlement groups who form the basis of his electorate.

Thank you for contacting me to share your opposition to assault weapons legislation. I respect your opinion on this important issue and welcome the opportunity to provide my point of view.

Mass shootings are a serious problem in our country, and I have watched this problem get worse and worse over the 40 years I have been in public life. From the 1966 shooting rampage at the University of Texas that killed 14 people and wounded 32 others, to the Newtown massacre that killed 20 children and 6 school teachers and faculty, I have seen more and more of these killings. I have had families tell me that they no longer feel safe in a mall, in a movie theater, in their business, and in other public places, because these deadly weapons are so readily available. These assault weapons too often fall into the hands of grievance killers, juveniles, gangs, and the deranged.

I recognize that the Second Amendment provides an individual right to bear arms, but I do not believe that right is unlimited or that it precludes taking action to prevent mass shootings. Indeed, in the same Supreme Court decision that recognized the individual right to bear arms , District of Columbia v. Heller , the Court also held that this right, like other constitutional rights, is not unlimited. That is why assault weapons bans have consistently been upheld in the courts, both before and after the Heller decision. I believe regulation of these weapons is appropriate.

Once again, thank you for your letter. Although we may disagree, I appreciate hearing from you and will be mindful of your thoughts as the debate on this issue continues. If you have any additional comments or questions, please do not hesitate to contact my Washington, D.C. office at (202) 224-3841.

Sincerely yours,

Dianne Feinstein
United States Senator

Dear Senator Feinstein,

With regard to assault weapons falling into the hands of grievance killers, juveniles, gangs, and the deranged too often, I seem to recall that your own website issued a press release last July (http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/publ...b-b8d0d4535aaa) stating that the number of individuals shot with assault weapons was 750 people, of whom 350 were killed, since the Federal Assault Weapon Ban expired. It had been 8 years since the 2004Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired at that point. 750 individuals divided by 8 years equals 93.75 people shot per year. 350 deaths divided by 8 years equals 42.5 deaths per year. To put this into perspective, that's about as many people who died from bee stings on an annual basis.

I would strongly support allocating more resources to improve our mental healthcare system, law enforcement agencies, corrections and rehabilitation programs than enacting an assault weapons ban.

Best regards,

__________________
Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side.

And that all the killing in that (except the shooter)
happened BEFORE the 'good ol boys <- many of whom were veterans)
went home and got their rifles and STARTED RETURNING FIRE to keep him pinned down
an armed response PREVENTED a worse masacare, like we see happening now days.

__________________

Quote:

Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.

Tom Harkin is one of those idiots whose ability to get reelected gives me a low opinion of the electorate. He's exactly the sort of politician who ought to be run out of town on a rail, not elected to high office. He just went on record saying we don't have a spending problem. Our economy is stalling, our credit's been downgraded, and looks to be again, and we borrow nearly half of every dollar we spend. But we don't have a spending problem.

His stance on guns is no different and no better. He's ignorant on the subject, and seems neither interested in or even capable of being educated about them. He's too doctrinaire. Like Feinstein, Schumer, Boxer, Lautenberg, and a few others, he's a lost cause. There's no question you can ask him that will make a difference, nor anything you can say. His mind's made up and no one here is going to change it. He'll support the most draconian anti-gun legislation that comes up for a vote. It strikes me as wiser to focus time, effort and money elsewhere, where it might have some effect.

This site, its contents, Shooting Reviews, and its contents are Copyright (c) 2010-2013 Firearms Forum, Inc.

IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER

Although The High Road has attempted to provide accurate information on the forum, The High Road assumes no responsibility for the accuracy of the information. All information is provided "as is" with all faults without warranty of any kind, either express or implied. Neither The High Road nor any of its directors, members, managers, employees, agents, vendors, or suppliers will be liable for any direct, indirect, general, bodily injury, compensatory, special, punitive, consequential, or incidental damages including, without limitation, lost profits or revenues, costs of replacement goods, loss or damage to data arising out of the use or inability to use this forum or any services associated with this forum, or damages from the use of or reliance on the information present on this forum, even if you have been advised of the possibility of such damages.